christianityfandomcom-20200214-history
Christianity Knowledge Base:What is a Christian
Proposals for the CPOV are to be posted on this page. Until we reach consensus, please discuss details on the discussion page. Proposal 1 - PASSED Refrain from using foul language, maintaining a G or PG rating. *'for' -- nsandwich 06:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC) *'for' Archola 07:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC) *'for' --MonkeeSage 11:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC) *'Yes indeedy' Homestarmy 13:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC) *'for' --Avery W. Krouse 22:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC) *'absolute for' --Hayson1991 23:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC) UPDATE: I can't see why anyone would object so this proposal has passed. Proposal 2 - PASSED Absolutely no pornographic or sexually explicit images are allowed *'for' -- nsandwich 06:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC) *'for' Archola 07:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC) *'for' obviously... inky *'for' --MonkeeSage 11:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC) *'for' Pr0n is mostly adultery of the heart Homestarmy 13:29, 30 March 2006 (UTC) *'for' --Avery W. Krouse 22:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC) *'absolute for' --Hayson1991 23:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC) UPDATE: I can't see why anyone would object so this proposal has passed. Proposal 3 - PASSED Absolutely no intolerant or hateful material is allowed. Discussion, exploration, and criticism are encouraged so long as they are respectful of other viewpoints. (See relevant discussion on talk page.) *'for' -- nsandwich 06:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC) *'for' Judge not, lest ye be judged, and check your own eye for beams before criticizing the speck in another's eye! Archola 07:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC) *'for' As long as I get to demur from the status quo in a friendly, respectful manner. :) --MonkeeSage 11:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC) *'for' --Hayson1991 23:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC) UPDATE: I can't see why anyone would object so this proposal has passed. Proposal 4 - PASSED Issues and questions concerning CKB policy shall be decided by the elected administration of this Wiki, taking into consideration all relevant research and discussion provided by both administrators and editors. *'for' (but could use better wording maybe. someone go ahead and change it) -- nsandwich 06:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC) *'maybe' but I'm sure if I'm ready for such responsibility. Archola 07:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC) *'for' He who payeth the bills... --MonkeeSage 11:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC) *'for' --Avery W. Krouse 22:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC) (Provided rewording, feel free to revert or edit further) *'for' --Hayson1991 23:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC); UPDATE: I can't see why anyone would object so this proposal has passed. Proposal 5 - PASSED Jesus Christ provides the only path to salvation for mankind *'for' (again, could use better wording. someone be bold and change it) -- *nsandwich 09:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC) *'for' This seems pretty basic to me. Archola 09:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC) *'for' Seems basic, but inclusivists would disagree. They are wrong of course, all-inclusive. :) --MonkeeSage 11:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC) *'for' A basic statement like this provides room for denominational flexibility (ala baptism, eucharist, etc.) --Avery W. Krouse 22:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC) *'absolute for' --Hayson1991 23:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC) *'for' I decided to be bold then Nsandwich :). Homestarmy 05:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC) UPDATE: I can't see why anyone would object so this proposal has passed. Proposal 6 - PASSED The canonical Gospels and the Pauline Epistles are Scripture. *'for' (wording here is also an issue. Someone would have to know what the Gospels and the Pauline Epistles are; these are not obvious to someone with a more limited understanding of Christianity.) -- nsandwich 09:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC) *'for' But see talk about the differences between Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox canons. Archola 09:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC) *'for' This seems like a good basic criteria to me -- shouldn't offend too many. And the ones who are offended probably have a well-worn copy of the DaVinci Code and think that Constantine forced everyone to be Christians. --MonkeeSage 11:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC) *'for' Homestarmy 13:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC) *'for' wording. --Hayson1991 23:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC) UPDATE: I can't see why anyone would object so this proposal has passed. Proposal 7 Since the Bible has many different versions, to secure the truthfulness when we mention the term "Bible", we accept the following versions to be refered to as "Bible": American Standard Version, English Standard Version, Holman Christian Standard Bible, King James Version, New American Standard Bible, New International Version, New International Version - UK, New King James Version, New Living Translation. About other versions, voting is necessary. --Hayson1991 00:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC) This will get complicated. :for: KJV, NIV, NIV UK, NKJV :neutral: I'm not familiar with ASV, ESV, Holman's, NASB, or NLT. :also for: RSV, TEV and, of course, our online World English Bible. Archola 02:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC) I think it'll get complicated too :/ :for: KJV, NIV, NASB, ASV, NKJV :neutral: ESV, HCSB, NIV-UK (Not familiar much with them) :against: NLT, On the NLT, I actually have one of those, it's a rather paraphrased translation which although seems to be pretty accurate, when I came across a pretty mis-translated proverb, (As in, I couldn't find any other Bible version which agreed that that is what it said) then it just seems to me we can do better than the NLT. I mean, it said Alchohol was evil, when most other Bible's said something along the lines of "Beer (or some variety of that) is for the poor, the suffering, those who want to forget" which is not really the same thing at all. Im not saying the NLT is a horrible New Age abomination, (The creators seemed to put a good amount of effort into it) since I assume we're going up for knowladge base type standards, I think we can do better with more literal translations. Homestarmy 05:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC) :for: ASV, ESV, HCSB, KJV, NASB, NIV, NKJV -- also New English Translation --MonkeeSage 07:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC) :for: all of above. We can cross-reference if one of them is wrongly (is that a word?) translated something. BTW what about New World Translation? --inky 07:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC) :for all of the above and Duterocanon, but mention any disputes over contents/translation on the individual pages. Maybe something along the lines of Note - This translation of the Bible is criticized by the XXXX denomination for YYYY. or Note - This book is not considered canon by the Protestant faith. --Dragoonmac - Talk 21:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC) Proposal 8 - PASSED Version of the Bible has to be mentioned when quoting Scripture.--Hayson1991 00:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC) * for we're going to need some templates made for bible references, and I am too dumb to make them :) -- nsandwich 00:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC) * for Inkybutton made us a template, check his user page. BTW we're using the World English translation, because it's pubic domain. Archola 02:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC) * for reasonable enough. Homestarmy 05:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC) UPDATE: I can't see why anyone would object so this proposal has passed. Proposal 9: Official Bible of the CKB Rather than lump all the bibles together, and have the ensuing crazy confusion (see Proposal 7), I am doing them invidually. Add any others as you see fit for individual voting. We should have a maximum of X bibles online and citeable (considered official for use on the CKB). This policy will determine how many votes you distribute among individual versions below. If you think we should have a maximum of 3 bibles, for example, then you should only vote for your 3 preferred ones from the list below (or add any additional ones). If you think we should have 4, you would place 4 votes, etc. Books with the most total votes will become official. In my head this sounds like the best (most fair) way to go about picking them. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE try to pick versions which we could actually legally HAVE here on the site. Proposal 9.1 We consider the King James Version of the Bible to be acceptable for citation on this website. * for -- nsandwich 01:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC) * for Archola 01:15, 1 April 2006 (UTC) * for --MonkeeSage 01:40, 1 April 2006 (UTC) * for with reservation also, if possible, NKJV should be OK. --Dragoonmac - Talk 10:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC) * for Homestarmy 00:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC) * for --Hayson1991 07:24, 6 April 2006 (PDT) Proposal 9.2 We consider the World English Version of the Bible to be acceptable for citation on this website. (if this book doesn't win, which would be ok with me, I will delete it from the site). * for -- nsandwich 01:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC) * for Archola 01:15, 1 April 2006 (UTC) * for --MonkeeSage 01:40, 1 April 2006 (UTC) * for --inky 04:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC) Proposal 9.3 We consider the New English Translation of the Bible to be acceptable for citation on this website. (This version can be freely used here: see preface head. 2, para. 2. It is up-to-date with current scholarship as reflected in current versions like NIV, NRSV, ESV. Homepage). * for --MonkeeSage 01:40, 1 April 2006 (UTC) * for --inky 04:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC) * for I'm now really for that as it has the Apocrypha which are really useful when trying to explain many of Christianity's more, well, Apocrayphal traditons --Dragoonmac - Talk 10:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC) * maybe I don't like the Apocrypha parts. If we are going to refer it to Bible (inspired scripture), it's better to use something that does not have the apocrypha. However, I like the study notes that it offers. --Hayson1991 14:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC) :See talk page for NET Bible Apocrypha preface, explaining whi it is included. --MonkeeSage 06:42, 7 April 2006 (PDT) ::Even though it has a preface disclaiming it, we still should not be including the Apocrypha, what will other people think when they see something in the Apocrypha contradicting the other parts of the bible? If we really want to use it, we should include a disclaimer on every page that mentions any quoting from it. --Hayson1991 14:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC) Proposal 10 The Bible is Divinely inspired. * Strong AgreeArchola 13:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC) * Strong Agree --Hayson1991 14:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC) * Strong Agree --Dragoonmac - Talk 15:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC) * for -- nsandwich 17:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC) * Absobalitutenanilly! (for) Homestarmy 20:55, 6 April 2006 (PDT) * predestined to agree --MonkeeSage 13:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)